ArticleRadiological physics and technology2018
Commissioning and validation of fluence-based 3D VMAT dose reconstruction system using new transmission detector.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-institutional survey on technical variations in total body irradiation in Japan.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Verification of stereotactic radiosurgery plans for multiple brain metastases using a virtual phantom-based procedure.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Article
- Investigation of optimum minimum segment width on VMAT plan quality and deliverability: A comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation using DVH analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- DVH analysis using a transmission detector and model-based dose verification system as a comprehensive pretreatment QA tool for VMAT plans: Clinical experience and results.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the basic performance of the three-dimensional dose verification system COMPASS (IBA Dosimetry). This system is capable of reconstructing 3D dose distributions on the patient anatomy based on the fluence measured using a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry) during treatment. The stability of the absolute dose and geometric calibrations of the COMPASS system with the Dolphin detector were investigated for fundamental validation. Furthermore, multileaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and a complicated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were used to evaluate the accuracy of the reconstructed dose distributions determined by the COMPASS. The results from the COMPASS were compared with those of a Monte Carlo simulation (MC), EDR2 film measurement, and a treatment planning system (TPS). The maximum errors for the absolute dose and geometrical position were - 0.28% and 1.0 mm for 3 months, respectively. The Dolphin detector, which consists of ionization chamber detectors, was firmly mounted on the linear accelerator and was very stable. For the MLC test patterns, the TPS showed a > 5% difference at small fields, while the COMPASS showed good agreement with the MC simulation at small fields. However, the COMPASS produced a large error for complex small fields. For a clinical VMAT plan, COMPASS was more accurate than TPS. COMPASS showed real delivered-dose distributions because it uses the measured fluence, a high-resolution detector, and accurate beam modeling. We confirm here that the accuracy and detectability of the delivered dose of the COMPASS system are sufficient for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.